## Contents

01. About the FSA .................................................................................................................. 2
02. Scope of the 2016 report.................................................................................................. 2
03. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3
04. Summary of 2016.............................................................................................................. 3
05. Our people – facts and figures ....................................................................................... 6 5.1. FSA Workforce profile ............................................................................................... 6 5.2. Grade profile ............................................................................................................. 6 5.3. Age profile ............................................................................................................... 6 5.4. Gender ...................................................................................................................... 7 5.5. Disability .................................................................................................................. 9 5.6. Ethnicity .................................................................................................................. 9 5.7 Sexual orientation ..................................................................................................... 11 5.8 Religion and Belief ................................................................................................... 12 5.9 Working patterns ....................................................................................................... 12 5.10 Leavers / Exits ......................................................................................................... 15 5.11 Discipline and Grievances ....................................................................................... 16
06. Recruitment ..................................................................................................................... 17
07. FSA Performance Management Scheme ....................................................................... 19
08. Learning and Development ............................................................................................ 22
09. Equal Pay Audits ........................................................................................................... 23
10. Consumer Engagement ................................................................................................. 23 10.1. Consumer segmentation ....................................................................................... 23 10.2. FSA Voices ........................................................................................................... 24
11. Stakeholder Engagement ............................................................................................... 25
12. Policy Development ....................................................................................................... 25
13. Accessibility .................................................................................................................... 26
14. The FSA’s Welsh Language Policy ............................................................................... 26
15. Our Ways of Working ................................................................................................... 27
16. Civil Service People Survey .......................................................................................... 28
17. Bullying and Harassment .............................................................................................. 29
18. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix ............................................................................................................................. 31
19. About the FSA

1.1 The Food Standards Agency’s roles and responsibilities are set out in the Food Standards Act 1999. This states that the main objective of the Agency in carrying out its functions is to protect public health from risks which may arise in connection with the consumption of food (including risks caused by the way in which it is produced or supplied) and otherwise to protect the interests of consumers in relation to food.

1.2 The FSA is committed to putting consumers first in everything we do. In protecting consumers’ interests in relation to food we shall ensure that “food is safe and what it says it is, and we have access to an affordable healthy diet, and can make informed choices about what we eat, now and in the future”. The FSA’s focus is on three main themes which need to be addressed and balanced to get the best overall outcomes for consumers and to ensure food we can trust, namely:

- the right to be protected from unacceptable levels of risk
- the right to make choices knowing the facts
- the right to the best food future possible.

2. Scope of the 2016 report

2.1 Under the Equality Act 2010, the FSA as a public body has a duty to publish relevant proportionate information annually to demonstrate compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty. The information which we publish seeks to show that the FSA has paid ‘due regard’ to the three aims of the general Equality Duty, namely to:

- eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Act;
- advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it; and
- foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. 2.2 This report presents a high level summary and overview of equality data, including workforce profiles and monitoring data / information for employment activities. The information presented represents the position as at 1 November 2016. The report contains a mix of qualitative and quantitative data. The figures in this report are based on a headcount total of 1077 members of staff and are taken from FSA’s iHR System unless otherwise stated. Staff not paid directly by FSA are not included in the analysis, nor are agency staff/contractors.

3. Introduction

3.1 Our diversity vision remains at the forefront of our thinking and development of diversity and inclusion initiatives supporting not only our own employees, but also how we consider and respect diversity in terms of consumers and stakeholders. This report demonstrates our achievements over the year.

This is the FSA’s sixth report under the Public Sector Duty. For copies of previous reports see: http://www.food.gov.uk/about-us/data-and-policies/equality/

4. Summary of 2016

4.1 We have continued to support initiatives and build on our own internal activities in the following areas over the past year:

- Supporting a number of individuals on CS wide initiatives, such as the Crossing Thresholds programme, the Women in Leadership programme and the Positive Action Pathway cohorts.

- Launch of an FSA Women Network to create a forum to help provide support for both women and men to build confidence and knowledge to further their career. This also enables the sharing of development activities or events that are happening in the cross government women networks as well as events that we want to run ourselves.

- Launch of a randomised networking scheme in September 2016 that was created to support the development of people from all backgrounds within the FSA, giving the opportunity to team up with another FSA employee and learn more about the diverse range of work being carried out across the FSA.

- The ‘Give it a Go’ pilot from Dec 2015 to March 2016 to try out smarter ways of working and develop more productive ways of working in terms of the tools, skills and physical spaces we use, saw a sustained 20% increase in remote working across all the office based staff following the end of the pilot phase. And in terms of recruitment – both internally and externally, we have been able to recruit a number of remote and flexible working staff in 2016.

- Development of a Black, African and Minority Ethnic network

- Design of structured support and guidance for employees who have Dyslexia.

4.2 And in terms of non-HR related aspects of diversity activity:

- we have continued to develop our understanding of different groups of consumers when developing communications activities, such as the Food Safety Week and Rare Burger campaigns.

- Creation of a staff advocacy programme called FSA Voices in January 2016 supporting our employees to promote our core messages about food we can trust to diverse audiences.

- Implementing a more proactive and structured way of engaging with a broader range of stakeholders, particularly seen in the ‘Our Food Future’ open discussion about consumer concerns in the food system. Our communication strategy has been redeveloped to support this approach, taking a more active stance on how we bring diverse views into our policy making, using innovative techniques, including social media, to ensure effective consultation.

- Finally, within our policy development, there have been a number of actions taken to address and raise awareness of food allergies and intolerances to different community groups.

4.3 Our Diversity Working Group continues to provide our corporate governance and strategic direction for diversity activity. 5. Our people – facts and figures

5.1. FSA Workforce profile

As at 1 November 2016, there were 1077 permanent and temporary employees in the FSA. This is a decrease of 42 employees from 1 November 2015 (from 1119).

5.2. Grade profile

A breakdown of FSA grades as at 1 November 2016 along with the previous 5 years is shown below.

5.3. Age profile

Analysis of our overall age profile as at 1 November 2016 shows the following Looking at our trends over the past 6 years, we can clearly see that our overall representation of workforce aged 49 and below has consistently decreased and for employees aged 50 and above we have consistently increased.

If we look at our employee age against grade as at 1 November 2016, this shows the following.

5.4. Gender

As at 1 November 2016 we had 729 male employees, representing 68% of our overall workforce and 328 female employees representing 32% of our overall workforce. This is represented in the below chart.

The next chart shows our split of gender by grade. Analysis of this data tells us that there are only marginal differences in gender representation from last year and our EO grade variation is due to the fact that 83% of our EO graded roles are within Field Operations. The role of Meat Hygiene Inspector, which is EO grade is male dominated by 91%. Appendix 1 shows a breakdown of gender, split out by grades over the past 5 years. Analysis of this data tells us that:

- There has been an increase in the number of males at AO grade from last year, by 6%, but overall there still remains a dominance of female representation.
- At EO grade, the gender split remains consistent over the past 5 years.
- At HEO/SEO grades there has been a marginal rise in male representation, to 52%, the highest it has been over the past 5 years. We will continue to monitor this.
- At G6/7 grades, there has been a 5% rise in male representation (55% to 60%), following the previous 4 years that showed a gradual decrease. Representation of females has dropped to its lowest level over the past 5 years, currently at 40%. This initial observation has been included on our list of areas to address in terms of our internal and external recruitment practices.
- At SCS grade, the same observation has been made that there is a 4% rise in male representation over the past year, although the trend over the past 5 years shows an overall increase of female representation from 30% to 43%, whereas males have decreased from 70% to 57%. We will continue to monitor this. 5.5. Disability

There were 881 employees (81.8%) who declared their disability status (either as having or not having, a disability). The remaining 196 employees (17%) either chose “Prefer not to say” or have left the field on their HR record blank.

There has been a slight increase in declared disability in grades AO and EO, a decline in HEO to G6 grade, and SCS remain the same over the past year. See Table 3 in the Appendix that shows the declaration rate by grade over the past 5 years. Last year our push for our employees to declare resulted in little change in declaration rates, so we will plan to run a fuller campaign over the 2017/18 year.

5.6. Ethnicity

As at 1 November 2016, of those who declared their ethnicity, the following has been recorded. The table below shows how the percentages of the minority ethnic group have consistently increased over the previous 5 years, but in 2016 have slightly dropped. The non-minority group showed a consistent decrease, but in 2016 slightly increased.

| | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | |------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Minority ethnic | 8.30% | 8.45% | 9.20% | 10.50%| 11.80%| 11.23%| | group | | | | | | | | Non-minority | 91.70%| 91.55%| 90.80%| 89.50%| 88.20%| 88.77%| | ethnic group | | | | | | | | Total | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |

By grade, the graph below shows that we have minority ethnic representation at all grades, the highest representation of minority ethnic is within the AO grade. The ethnicity declaration rates over the past five years can be seen at Table 4 in the Appendix, and are represented in the chart below. Each grade band, apart from SCS grade shows a decrease in the actual declaration rates of minority ethnic. This decrease in minority ethnic representation has been included on our list of priority areas to address.

5.7 Sexual orientation

As at 1 November 2016, 50% of FSA employees had recorded their sexual orientation – an increase of 3 percentage points from 2016. Of those who had recorded their sexual orientation, 97.7% of employees identified themselves as heterosexual. 5.8 Religion and Belief

As at 1 November 2016, 44.1% of FSA employees had recorded their religion or belief. The past 6 years shows a steady increase in declaration.

Out of those 44.1%, 70% identified their religion as Christianity, 12.6% as Atheism, 5.05% Agnosticism, 2.95% as Islam, 0.62% as Sikhism and 0.42% as Judaism.

5.9 Working patterns

The FSA supports a number of flexible working patterns and many of our employees are able to work flexibly subject to business requirements, regardless of whether they have childcare or other caring responsibilities. As at 1 November 2016 the number of employees working part-time was 103 which represents 10% of the total FSA workforce. Over the past four years the following trends can be seen from the part-time employees. The above chart shows a 13% increase in male employees who work part-time as at 1 November 2016, greatly reducing the gender imbalance in part-time workers.

Out of those part-time employees, the following chart shows an increase in part-time workers who have a declared disability from 4% to 6%. In comparison with our overall statistics for disability, this figure is only marginally below the 6.92% of employees with a declared disability. The subsequent chart showing ethnicity declaration shows a 1% decrease in minority ethnic staff working part-time from the previous year. The next chart shows the majority of part-time employees are aged between 35 and 49, however we also note a decrease in part-time working from those who are aged under 49 and a substantial increase in those aged 50 and above. Our change programme, “Our Ways of Working”, continues to offer flexibility to employees in how and where they carry out their work. This may have had an impact on the number of employees who choose to work part-time, as this offers the opportunity to improve work-life balance without necessarily reducing working hours.

The introduction of shared parental leave may have had an impact on the number of employees who have taken this and subsequently wish to return to work on a part-time basis. This is an area that we will carry out further analysis.

5.10 Leavers / Exits

100 staff left the FSA between 1 November 2015 and 31 October 2016. The chart below shows the reasons for leaving. The category of ‘Other’ includes death in service, transfer to another government department, ill health retirement or end of temporary contract. In terms of leavers’ diversity categories, the table below gives a breakdown by gender, disability (of those who record their disability status), ethnicity and age over the past 4 years. We can see from this that there has been a much higher percentage of people leaving the FSA who had a declared disability and also those from minority ethnic group.

| | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | |----------------------|------|------|------|------| | Number of leavers | 86 | 142 | 239 | 100 | | **Gender** | | | | | | Male | 58.1%| 60.6%| 57.7%| 57.0%| | Female | 41.9%| 39.4%| 42.3%| 43.0%| | **Disability** | | | | | | Declared disability | 6.5% | 5.6% | 3.9% | 16.2%| | No declared disability| 93.5%| 94.4%| 96.1%| 83.8%| | **Ethnicity** | | | | | | Minority ethnic group| 5.1% | 8.6% | 8.1% | 12.9%| | Non-minority ethnic group| 94.9%| 91.4%| 91.9%| 87.1%| | **Age** | | | | | | Under 35 | 24.4%| 14.1%| 16.7%| 22.0%| | 35 – 49 | 33.7%| 35.2%| 41.8%| 32.0%| | 50 – 64 | 38.4%| 40.1%| 39.3%| 42.0%| | Over 65 | 3.5% | 10.6%| 2.1% | 4.0% |

5.11 Discipline and Grievances

From the recorded casework information between 1 October 2015 and 30 September 2016, 16 disciplinary cases were recorded. Because the numbers are so small, it is difficult to draw any conclusions regarding any imbalance against the overall workforce.

21 Grievances were recorded. These figures do not include informal grievances which are dealt with by management at a local level and are not recorded by the casework advisory service. The number of grievances spiked in March 2016, at the time End of Year Reviews were being carried although, the appeals relating to end of year reviews were not included as part of the above figure. 6. Recruitment

We continue to monitor all stages of the recruitment process, in particular to ensure that shortlists are gender balanced for both internal and external campaigns. All campaigns that are routed through the Civil Service wide e-recruiting system ensure that applicants are anonymous until the interview stage.

The information for the rest of this recruitment section is based on data gathered from the e-recruiting system, for the period from 1 November 2015 to 31 October 2016.

Applicant statistics can be viewed in full in tables 5-8 of the Appendix.

The success rate of female applicants getting through to the ready to hire stage is higher than the male success rate. There is a higher proportion of males being rejected at sifting and interview stage, but this is in proportion to the number of applications received. A slightly higher proportion of candidates with a disability are being rejected after the sifting stage than those who have no disability.

Compared to the number of initial applicants, a higher proportion of applicants from a minority ethnic group are being rejected after the sifting stage than those who are from a non-minority ethnic group. There is a higher proportion of applicants from a non-minority ethnic group who are successfully appointed, as compared to the minority ethnic group. We will investigate this further in our continuing review of recruitment processes. The youngest age group are the highest proportion of applicants, however in comparison with last year, there has been a decrease in the amount of applications received from this group (from 57% dropping to 42%), whereas applicants between 35 -49 have increased by 7 percentage points to 39% and age range of 50 – 64 has increased by 6 percentage points to 15%.

The proportion of younger applicants being rejected after screening has increased, which is the same finding as last year, whilst the older age groups have been more successful. The proportion of applicants aged between 35 – 49 rejected at interview is higher, although they are the highest overall proportion reaching ready to hire status (58%).

7. FSA Performance Management Scheme

An analysis of performance assessment scores for the 2015/16 review year was conducted by the FSA’s Analysis and Research Division using established statistical methods. The factors that were analysed included: age, gender, ethnicity, disability, working hours, grade and directorate. Within the FSA performance review scheme, employees received a score of either 1 (exceptional performer), 2 (effective performer) or 3 (improvement expected). Analysis found that there was only sufficient evidence to suggest that the highest performance scores were associated with Age and Working Hours, and the lowest performance scores were associated with disability. There was no statistical differences related to gender.

The proportion of staff awarded the top performance score appears to fall with age from the 30-39 age group. The proportion of over 60s receiving a score of 1 (11%) was significantly lower than the proportion of those in the 30-39 age group (31%).

The proportion of employees receiving the bottom performance scores increased with age. Among employees aged 40 and over, 12% received a score of 3, twice the proportion of those younger than 40 years of age (6%).

**Figure 1 – Performance scores awarded by the age of employees**

There were 67 employees who had stated that they were disabled. These employees were twice as likely to be awarded the bottom performance rating than the employees who stated they were not disabled (22% compared to 10%). 182 employees (out of 1078) chose not to disclose whether or not they were disabled. The distribution of performance scores among these 182 employees was similar to the employees who stated that they were not disabled.

**Figure 2 – Performance scores awarded by disability status of employees**

Field Operations was the directorate with the most part-time employees (39 of the 101 staff across the whole Agency). Within Field Operations, only 5% of part-time employees were awarded the top performance score, significantly lower than the proportion of full time employees (26%).

Within the rest of the Agency (excluding Field Operations) 16% of part-time employees were awarded the top performance score, compared to 26% of full-time employees. This was not a statistically significant difference.

**Figure 3 – Performance scores awarded by working hours of employees** A review of this data will be undertaken to identify whether any lessons can be learnt, and whether any further training or interventions are required. The Performance Management Scheme will also undergo a significant update in the near future, following a recent Civil Service wide review. This will include consideration of whether any changes can be made in light of the above.

8. Learning and Development

The FSA has again committed to sponsoring a number of places on the Civil Service-wide Positive Action Pathway programme, “Levelling the Playing Field”. The Position Action Pathway is a targeted learning intervention to support certain groups who are under-represented or have traditionally been treated unfairly.

The Pathway is a formal one year learning programme comprised of a number of mandatory learning activities, guidance to developmental workplace learning and completion of complementary “on the job” learning which includes:

- a formal one day Launch and Graduation Event;
- a Development Event designed to identify individual development needs;
- mandatory positive action learning modules; • membership of a facilitated structured Action Learning Set; • access to a Coach or to a Mentor for the duration of the programme; and • undertaking complementary “on the job” learning, such as project work or wider work deployment.

A wide range of diversity-related opportunities are available on Civil Service Learning (CSL), including modules on ‘Unconscious Bias’ and LGBT awareness. A new training provider has now been appointed for the Civil Service, and the expectation is that there will be an increase in the range of related learning opportunities on offer.

In addition, we continue to support a number of Civil Service wide initiatives, including the Crossing Thresholds programme and the Women’s Leadership Programme.

9. Equal Pay Audits

FSA pay practice and structure is underpinned by a job evaluation scheme (JEGS) which is used to support fair and consistent decisions about the weighting of job roles and provide the basis of a fair and orderly grading structure. The JEGs scheme is used in respect of posts from the Administrative Officer grade through to Grade 6 – and most evaluations are undertaken when a new post is created or an existing post changes significantly. A separate analytical scheme, Job Evaluation for Senior Posts (JESP) is used for jobs within the Senior Civil Service grades.

The FSA undertakes equal pay reviews as part of the preparations for each pay review round, both to monitor current pay practice and to ensure that pay proposals do not have a discriminatory impact.

10. Consumer Engagement

10.1. Consumer segmentation

Building on the consumer segmentation we carried out with consumers in 2016, we have now completed the Agency’s Northern Ireland consumer segmentation which includes health and nutrition information on all segments. We use the consumer segmentation to help us understand and gain a better picture of different groups of consumers when developing Communications activities and developing policies. We have used the Agency’s consumer segmentation (completed last year) to help us target our communication and policy development to the right audiences, particularly for our Food Safety Week activity and our campaigns around communicating the risk of consuming a rare burger.

We are currently working with Asian and African communities to develop our understanding of the illegal production of ‘Smokies’. This is due to report in 2017.

10.2. FSA Voices In January 2016 we launched a staff advocacy programme under the banner of FSA Voices. FSA Voices has been a great vehicle for promoting our core messages about food we can trust, particularly among harder to reach and diverse audiences. Everything we’ve done from Our Food Futures Conference to Food Safety Week to our high-profile Burger V Steak campaign, our advocates have helped us cut through the noise, with an authentic voice on food issues.

We currently have just over 300 people (about a quarter of the organisation) registered as FSA Voices. In true advocacy spirit, our FSA Voices have also given up their free time to pass on our knowledge and expertise. This includes equipping community groups and schools with relevant tools, to the FSA Voices community supporting each other by sharing stories, asking for advice and generating new ideas through a dedicated group on Yammer.

Food is probably the most essential and valuable resource we have. Without our advocates, we wouldn’t have reached as many of our key audiences, we wouldn’t have engaged as many citizens and we wouldn’t have been as successful in achieving the strategic objectives of our organisation. 11. Stakeholder Engagement

Working with partners and stakeholders across the communities that we serve is a integral part of our values, and we have been working on a more proactive and structured way of engaging with a broader range of stakeholders. In 2016 we conducted ‘Our Food Future’ – an initiative which sought to engage stakeholders from a full range of backgrounds in an open discussion about consumer concerns around medium term issues in the food system. We had over 150 attendees online and over 6000 people engaged in the live stream of the event. We also redeveloped our communication strategy to support this approach, taking a more active stance on how we bring diverse views into our policymaking, using innovative techniques, including social media, to ensure that our consultation is more effective particularly as we look to how food will be regulated in the future.

12. Policy Development

Within the allergy branch the “our food allergy story” campaign video featured a diverse range of people that make up our communities affected by food allergies and intolerances.

In the food service sector we have engaged with ethnic caterers, online food aggregators and trade associations to communicate changes in the law. Those with an ethnic background may not be as aware of food allergy due to the lower incidence in those countries. Therefore they may not be aware of the severity of the condition and the importance of knowing what ingredients have been used to prevent allergen cross contamination. In developing foreign language material, the “Think Allergy!” poster was translated into five languages (Chinese, Bengali, Urdu, Punjabi and Welsh) by the FSA for use by businesses and enforcement officers to help educate businesses in their catchment area. The LA’s then developed this further to support ethnic businesses specific to their area, by translating materials into other languages.

Looking forward to the future, with the introduction of the revised EU Novel Food Regulation we are exploring taking a different approach to how we handle traditional foods originating from outside the EU. We are aware that as a policy team what we may determine to be novel foods have in fact been and are being consumed safely in communities outside the EU but currently would have to go through a long authorisation process to be sold in EU. We are working within the new framework to make it easier for this type of product to enter the market through a quicker authorisation route that respects the traditional use of the food.

13. Accessibility The FSA aims to make its website food.gov.uk as accessible as possible. Information provided from the FSA is for everyone, regardless of ability, age or background and the FSA is committed to ensuring its website is accessible to the widest possible range of people. The FSA’s accessibility statement (see: http://www.food.gov.uk/about-us/data-and-policies/aboutsite/accessibility/accessibilitystatement/) sets out the broad principles and accessibility guidelines which the FSA follows. More detailed information about the accessibility features of the FSA’s website can be found at: http://www.food.gov.uk/about-us/data-and-policies/aboutsite/accessibility/.

We aim to ensure our websites can be used and work well with assistive technologies, such as software that reads pages aloud. We provide access keys for users who have difficulty in using pointing devices such as a mouse or who prefer to use keyboard shortcuts. We ensure our webpages use clear and simple language, are consistent and functional in all major browsers. We provide meaningful text equivalents for pictures, where pictures contain information, and our video content includes captions.

The accessibility of the website is tested and monitored on a continuous basis. We use a product called SiteImprove to highlight any issues and we intend to involve users with a variety of disabilities in website testing.

14. The FSA’s Welsh Language Policy The FSA’s statutory Welsh Language Policy, which is currently outlined in the FSA’s Welsh Language Scheme, describes which services are provided in Welsh and how and when these services will be provided, in line with the Welsh Language Act 1993. The Welsh Language Measure 2011 further promotes and facilitates the use of the Welsh language, and will require those bodies subject to this measure to provide its services accordingly and comply with **Welsh Language Standards**. As part of this process, the FSA was investigated by the regulatory body (to gauge current Welsh Language Provision), the Welsh Language Commissioner and a report containing the findings of this investigation was published in November 2015. This report will be considered by Welsh Government as they draft the relevant legislation, which will be issued to the FSA as a uniquely tailored ‘Compliance Notice’ outlining the Standards to which the FSA will be legally bound. A draft compliance notice should be published sometime during 2017. Until these Standards are enforced, the Agency’s Welsh Language Scheme will remain in place and the FSA will continue to provide Welsh language services of an equal and high quality.

Under the Welsh Language Scheme, the FSA is required to submit an annual report to the Welsh Language Commissioner setting out its compliance with its Welsh Language Scheme. This report details the FSA’s bilingual provision in accordance with the FSA’s Scheme. The Welsh Language Commissioner has noted the ongoing work of the Agency in implementing its Scheme during 2015/16. Further information can be found at: [http://www.food.gov.uk/about-us/data-and-policies/welshlanguagepolicy](http://www.food.gov.uk/about-us/data-and-policies/welshlanguagepolicy)

**15. Our Ways of Working**

The Our Ways of Working (OWOW) programme was established in late 2015 to create an environment in which our people are highly capable, effectively supported and engaged with our mission – food we can trust – so that they consistently choose to make outstanding contributions to protecting, informing and empowering consumers.

We ran a pilot entitled “give it a go” from Dec 2015-March 2016, where managers supported their teams to try out smarter ways of working. We also used this to develop more productive ways of working in terms of the tools, skills and physical spaces we use. 100% of our office based teams took part in the give it a go pilot and all managers tried at least one form, but most tried a number, of smarter working initiatives in 2016.

In real terms we have seen a sustained 20% increase in remote working across all our office based staff following the end of the pilot phase.

All our office based recruitment, internally or externally, now have a flexibility first approach and we have recruited a number of remote and flexible working staff in 2016.

The programme has increased smarter, location agnostic working across the organisations with tools and management support we need to do our jobs effectively.

In 2017 we are planning to launch three new contract types (office/site based, multi-location and home enabled) which have been developed to support our staff and allow a formal agreement for the individual to work in a location which suits them and the FSA. Initial indication suggests the following take up of each contract type:

- Office / site based: 40%
- Multi-location: 40%
- Home-enabled: 20%

Once all staff are working to the new contracts we intend to put in place monitoring systems to look at how the different arrangements are working and impacting on engagement and performance.

16. **Civil Service People Survey**

The Civil Service People Survey (CSPS) is an annual survey to measure staff engagement across the Civil Service. Detailed analysis of different demographic groups’ responses is being undertaken to inform the organisational response to the survey, in addition to continued activity to embed actions driven by the 2015/16 survey results. Each directorate will also analyse their own results, and collaboratively design local actions plans addressing what matters to people in that team.

17. Bullying and Harassment

Reported overall levels of experiencing bullying and harassment at work averaged 18% across the FSA. Field Operations levels rose 3 points to 28% between October 2015 and 2016. Office based levels range between 10 and 15%.

One hypothesis is that levels of under-reporting fell as staff recognised a heightened focus on dealing with issues at source, with significant incidents occurring between Food Business Operators and FSA staff/contract partner vets. The brief withdrawal of the regulatory presence to the vet’s office whilst an incident was escalated and resolved locally has occasionally been deployed, and welcomed for its impact.

Other key lines being taken include

- the overhaul in the calibre of leadership and management of change, in field operations in particular, characterised by the drive to ensure effective at least monthly one to one dialogue for all.
- Faster escalation of reported incidents during the year to FSA senior management with a view to nipping issues firmly in the bud.
- Re-specifying during the recent re-tender exercise the standards expected of our service delivery partners in equipping their leadership to address issues as they arise.
- the development a bespoke good practice workshop for delivery in Spring 2017 to both field and non-field based members of the management community and onward cascade to their teams. The content design has benefitted from reviewing best Civil Service practice, which sets out approaches to developing
  - a common recognition of what constitute bullying, harassment and discrimination, and how these can be manifested in our world,
  - specifying and role modelling inclusive behaviours, o defining the boundaries between sound (if robust) and poor management, and o setting out effective ways, both informal and informal, to address issues should they arise.

18. Conclusion

The 2016 year has seen us implementing a number of diversity and inclusion initiatives that have supported our staff internally and continue to do so. Our statistical analysis and measure of employee and applicant information has highlighted a number of areas that we will further investigate.

An integral part of our diversity values is how we serve each part of the community in a way that reflects it needs. This report has demonstrated how we have considered and implemented new and innovative ways of engaging with stakeholders and consumers in order to reach out to diverse communities that we serve and to influence our policymaking. Appendix

Table 1 – Gender split over past 5 years

| | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | Number | % | |-------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|-------| | Male | 68.70% | 67.60% | 66.90% | 67.47% | 729 | 67.69%| | Female| 31.30% | 32.40% | 33.10% | 32.52% | 348 | 32.31%| | Total | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 1077 | 100% |

Table 2 – Gender by Grade over the past 5 years

| | Male | Female | Total | % Male | % Female | |-------|------|--------|-------|--------|----------| | AO | | | | | | | 2012 | 10 | 32 | 42 | 24% | 76% | | 2013 | 12 | 31 | 43 | 28% | 72% | | 2014 | 13 | 29 | 42 | 31% | 69% | | 2015 | 7 | 19 | 26 | 27% | 73% | | 2016 | 8 | 16 | 24 | 33% | 67% | | EO | | | | | | | 2012 | 602 | 113 | 715 | 84% | 16% | | 2013 | 571 | 121 | 692 | 83% | 18% | | 2014 | 539 | 109 | 648 | 83% | 17% | | 2015 | 459 | 88 | 547 | 84% | 16% | | 2016 | 428 | 85 | 513 | 83% | 17% | | HEO / SEO | | | | | | | 2012 | 210 | 210 | 420 | 50% | 50% | | 2013 | 213 | 207 | 420 | 51% | 49% | | 2014 | 187 | 204 | 391 | 48% | 52% | | 2015 | 205 | 187 | 392 | 50% | 49% | | 2016 | 204 | 188 | 392 | 52% | 48% | | G6/7 | | | | | | | 2012 | 73 | 53 | 126 | 58% | 42% | | 2013 | 71 | 57 | 128 | 56% | 45% | | 2014 | 78 | 61 | 139 | 56% | 44% | | 2015 | 75 | 62 | 137 | 55% | 45% | | 2016 | 81 | 53 | 134 | 60% | 40% |

### Table 3 – Disability declaration over the past 5 years

| | Declared disability | No disability declared | Not declared | Total | % Declared disability | % No disability declared | |--------|---------------------|------------------------|--------------|-------|-----------------------|-------------------------| | **AO** | | | | | | | | 2012 | 2 | 33 | 7 | 42 | 5.70% | 94.30% | | 2013 | 1 | 33 | 9 | 43 | 2.90% | 97.06% | | 2014 | 3 | 31 | 8 | 42 | 8.80% | 91.18% | | 2015 | 2 | 21 | 3 | 26 | 8.70% | 91.30% | | 2016 | 2 | 19 | 3 | 24 | 9.52% | 90.48% | | **EO** | | | | | | | | 2012 | 35 | 659 | 21 | 715 | 5.04% | 94.96% | | 2013 | 38 | 619 | 35 | 692 | 5.78% | 94.22% | | 2014 | 38 | 574 | 36 | 648 | 6.21% | 93.79% | | 2015 | 37 | 463 | 47 | 547 | 7.40% | 92.60% | | 2016 | 36 | 421 | 56 | 513 | 7.88% | 92.12% | | **HEO / SEO** | | | | | | | | 2012 | 21 | 345 | 54 | 420 | 5.74% | 94.26% | | 2013 | 21 | 338 | 61 | 420 | 5.85% | 94.15% | | 2014 | 17 | 306 | 68 | 391 | 5.26% | 94.74% | | 2015 | 17 | 275 | 100 | 392 | 5.82% | 94.18% | | 2016 | 15 | 281 | 96 | 392 | 5.07% | 94.93% | | **G6/7** | | | | | | | | 2012 | 4 | 108 | 14 | 126 | 3.57% | 96.43% | | 2013 | 6 | 102 | 20 | 128 | 5.56% | 94.44% | | 2014 | 9 | 98 | 32 | 139 | 8.41% | 91.59% | | 2015 | 9 | 93 | 35 | 137 | 8.82% | 91.18% | | 2016 | 8 | 89 | 37 | 134 | 8.25% | 91.75% | | **SCS** | | | | | | | | 2012 | 0 | 19 | 1 | 20 | 0% | 100% | | 2013 | 0 | 20 | 1 | 21 | 0% | 100% | | 2014 | 0 | 17 | 3 | 20 | 0% | 100% | | 2015 | 0 | 13 | 4 | 17 | 0% | 100% | | 2016 | 0 | 10 | 4 | 14 | 0% | 100% | Table 4 – Ethnicity declarations over the past 5 years

| | Minority ethnic group | Non-minority ethnic group | Not declared | Total | % Minority ethnic group | % Non-minority ethnic group | |--------|-----------------------|---------------------------|--------------|-------|------------------------|---------------------------| | **AO** | | | | | | | | 2012 | 9 | 27 | 6 | 42 | 25.0% | 75.0% | | 2013 | 11 | 27 | 5 | 43 | 29.0% | 71.0% | | 2014 | 13 | 24 | 5 | 42 | 35.1% | 64.9% | | 2015 | 14 | 11 | 1 | 26 | 56.0% | 44.0% | | 2016 | 9 | 12 | 3 | 24 | 42.9% | 57.1% | | **EO** | | | | | | | | 2012 | 42 | 644 | 29 | 715 | 6.1% | 93.9% | | 2013 | 41 | 617 | 34 | 692 | 6.2% | 93.8% | | 2014 | 41 | 573 | 34 | 648 | 6.7% | 93.3% | | 2015 | 39 | 478 | 30 | 547 | 7.5% | 92.5% | | 2016 | 37 | 448 | 28 | 513 | 7.6% | 92.4% | | **HEO / SEO** | | | | | | | | 2012 | 50 | 314 | 56 | 420 | 13.7% | 86.3% | | 2013 | 53 | 308 | 59 | 420 | 14.7% | 85.3% | | 2014 | 56 | 285 | 50 | 391 | 16.4% | 83.6% | | 2015 | 60 | 294 | 38 | 392 | 17.0% | 83.1% | | 2016 | 57 | 301 | 34 | 392 | 15.9% | 84.8% | | **G6/7** | | | | | | | | 2012 | 2 | 115 | 9 | 126 | 1.7% | 98.3% | | 2013 | 5 | 111 | 12 | 128 | 4.3% | 95.7% | | 2014 | 8 | 109 | 22 | 139 | 6.8% | 93.2% | | 2015 | 11 | 104 | 17 | 132 | 9.6% | 90.4% | | 2016 | 7 | 104 | 23 | 134 | 6.3% | 93.7% | | **SCS** | | | | | | | | 2012 | 0 | 16 | 4 | 20 | 0% | 100% | | 2013 | 0 | 17 | 4 | 21 | 0% | 100% | | 2014 | 0 | 15 | 5 | 20 | 0% | 100% | | 2015 | 0 | 14 | 3 | 17 | 0% | 100% | | 2016 | 1 | 12 | 1 | 14 | 7.7% | 92.3% |

### Table 5 to 8 - Applicant statistics between 01 November 2015 to 31 October 2016

#### Table 5

| Gender | Male | Female | Not said | Total | |-------------------------|------|--------|----------|-------| | Applications received | 877 | 542 | 16 | 1435 | | | 61% | 38% | 1% | | | Rejected after screening / sift | 601 | 392 | 8 | 1001 | | | 60% | 39% | 1% | | | Rejected after 1st interview | 92 | 47 | 4 | 143 | | | 64% | 33% | 3% | | | Reserve list | 9 | 8 | 1 | 18 | | | 26% | 23% | 1% | | | Ready to hire | 46 | 33 | 1 | 80 | | | 58% | 41% | 1% | |

#### Table 6

| Disability | No Disability declared | Disability declared | Prefer not to say | Total | |-----------------------------|------------------------|---------------------|-------------------|-------| | Applications received | 1297 | 85 | 53 | 1435 | | | 90% | 6% | 4% | | | Rejected after screening / sift | 910 | 59 | 32 | 1001 | | | 91% | 6% | 3% | | | Rejected after 1st interview | 130 | 5 | 8 | 143 | | | 91% | 3% | 6% | | | Reserve list | 16 | 1 | 1 | 18 | | | 89% | 6% | 6% | | | Ready to hire | 93 | 4 | 4 | 101 | | | 92% | 4% | 4% | |

#### Table 7

| Ethnicity | Non-minority ethnic group | Minority ethnic group | Not declared | Total | |----------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------|--------------|-------| | Applications received | 1053 | 322 | 60 | 1435 | | | 73% | 22% | 4% | | | Rejected after screening / sift | 697 | 264 | 40 | 1001 | | | 70% | 26% | 4% | | | Rejected after 1st interview | 120 | 18 | 5 | 143 | | | 84% | 13% | 3% | | | Reserve list | 15 | 2 | 1 | 18 | | | 83% | 11% | 6% | | | Ready to hire | 67 | 7 | 6 | 80 | | | 83% | 9% | 8% | | Table 8

| Age | Under 35 | 35-49 | 50-64 | Over 65 | Not declared | Total | |----------------------|----------|-------|-------|---------|--------------|-------| | Applications received| 607 | 566 | 216 | 0 | 46 | 1435 | | | 42% | 39% | 15% | 0 | 3% | | | Rejected after screening / sift | 474 | 362 | 131 | 0 | 34 | 1001 | | | 47% | 36% | 13% | 0 | 3% | | | Rejected after 1st interview | 37 | 69 | 31 | 0 | 6 | 143 | | | 26% | 48% | 22% | 0 | 4% | | | Reserve list | 8 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 18 | | | 44% | 39% | 17% | 0 | 0 | | | Ready to hire | 20 | 45 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 78 | | | 25% | 58% | 17% | 0 | 0 | |